[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=45879.msg1410825#msg1410825 date=1318311522]
Wiz II,
You really think both passes weren't forward? That's surprising ...
The ball went forward on both of them, no doubt about it. I just don't think it was passed forward on either of them.
My issues re: 95:
1) home field side always gives you advantage. England '66? SK in '02? France in '98? Be it the crowds, be it ref - it's why 'hosting' a big tourney helps so much.
2) the food poisoning - we've seen this used before Spurs/Gooners too. If the WHOLE squad got it, ok but a few? Dunno. The All-Blacks were a far better team that year, far better team than anyone. They just were flat in the final as a TEAM and the Boks held out and got what they needed to eek it out.
Mate, I'm amazed anyone argues this anymore - it's just accepted now. The english teams used to complain about being poisoned when they played the European Cup in other countries back in the day. Then they realized it was just they weren't used to the water. The only people in the entire touring party who weren't caught with food poisoning was a group of about 8 (staff and players) who didn't eat where they were staying.
My issues re: 07:
The winners ALWAYS get the breaks, be it with how weaker teams upset the bigger teams (France vs NZ). SA were a very good team that year, and as Rafa alludes to, got even better later in the decade. I don't really mind if they go through the best, or through the worst - they won the games in front of them and that's what counts. No one will remember how or why in 30 years.
As I said, I really don't have a problem with the SA side that one in '07. They beat everyone they had to and that's what's required. That said, they were last in the Tri-Nations, got beat on home soil by New Zealand and utterly smashed in the Shaky Isle in the lead up. At the time they said it was simply preparation but the match at home was their best 15 and they never looked close. Contrary to what it may seem I don't discount that they were the winners '07. My point is that they wouldn't be sitting at home just now if they'd moved out of the 70's and started playing the game with the intention to score tries. Australia didn't really manage it but all they had to do was compete at the breakdown to stop them. More variety and the Wallabies would be the ones at home.
[/quote]
Wiz II,
You really think both passes weren't forward? That's surprising ...
The ball went forward on both of them, no doubt about it. I just don't think it was passed forward on either of them.
My issues re: 95:
1) home field side always gives you advantage. England '66? SK in '02? France in '98? Be it the crowds, be it ref - it's why 'hosting' a big tourney helps so much.
2) the food poisoning - we've seen this used before Spurs/Gooners too. If the WHOLE squad got it, ok but a few? Dunno. The All-Blacks were a far better team that year, far better team than anyone. They just were flat in the final as a TEAM and the Boks held out and got what they needed to eek it out.
Mate, I'm amazed anyone argues this anymore - it's just accepted now. The english teams used to complain about being poisoned when they played the European Cup in other countries back in the day. Then they realized it was just they weren't used to the water. The only people in the entire touring party who weren't caught with food poisoning was a group of about 8 (staff and players) who didn't eat where they were staying.
My issues re: 07:
The winners ALWAYS get the breaks, be it with how weaker teams upset the bigger teams (France vs NZ). SA were a very good team that year, and as Rafa alludes to, got even better later in the decade. I don't really mind if they go through the best, or through the worst - they won the games in front of them and that's what counts. No one will remember how or why in 30 years.
As I said, I really don't have a problem with the SA side that one in '07. They beat everyone they had to and that's what's required. That said, they were last in the Tri-Nations, got beat on home soil by New Zealand and utterly smashed in the Shaky Isle in the lead up. At the time they said it was simply preparation but the match at home was their best 15 and they never looked close. Contrary to what it may seem I don't discount that they were the winners '07. My point is that they wouldn't be sitting at home just now if they'd moved out of the 70's and started playing the game with the intention to score tries. Australia didn't really manage it but all they had to do was compete at the breakdown to stop them. More variety and the Wallabies would be the ones at home.
[/quote]